Thoughts on the Meaning of ‘Democracy’

Yes, we should be wary of the tyranny of the majority. But we should also remember that 'democracy' is how we describe an entire system of liberty.

By
117

Sen. Mike Lee has been tweeting some interesting things.

During Wednesday night’s vice presidential debate, Lee declared on Twitter, “We’re not a democracy.”

That raised some eyebrows, to say the least. He followed up by tweeting, “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity [sic] are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.”

I’ll spare you the Twitter histrionics. Suffice it to say a great many people did not sigh with relief at this clarification. Maybe they should have, at least a little. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
117
By
Comments (117)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Steve

    I recently stumbled across "The Public Philosophy," which I read as a student well over 50 years ago. Written by the then-top (only?) public intellectual, Walter Lippmann, in 1954, chapter 2, "The Malady of Democratic States," lays out in a brilliant manner the problems of trying to govern based on "mass opinion." To me, "mass opinion" is a definition of pure democracy. In my opinion, too many elected officials today want to subject way too many decisions to a vote of the citizenry (particularly those on the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen). It cannot work.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    Well, it is not surprising that Senator Lee said this. He is a Republican after all. The Republican party of late has become very antagonistic towards democracy. This is because their ideology means more to them than actually governing. They know the ideology is not popular and rather than try to figure out a way to sell it to other groups and grow their coalition, they have just decided to tamp down on democratic principles instead.

    Erect barriers to voting? Check. Propose bringing back poll taxes, or find other ways to make it difficult to vote? Check. Never want to get rid of the 1929 apportionment act, that would allow proper representation, and fix the problems with the electoral college? Check as well.

    In fact, the whole new "hot take" of Common Good Constitutionalism is just totalitarian control without letting the "people" decide what is best for themselves.

    Look, there is a difference in the parties, and it matters specifically on this issue. Which party is more w

    illing to put more power in hands of the people, where it actually belongs? Why, that would be the Democratic party. Which party wants to make it easier, not harder, to vote, no matter who you vote for? Why, that would be the Democratic party.

    This is a major issue now. Both parties have to subscribe to the idea that Americans should get to vote, and come to terms on how to make it as easy and fair as possible. Both parties ought to really subscribe to the idea of the free marketplace of ideas, and work to educated the voters on their platforms.

    But Republicans have long abandoned the "free marketplace of ideas", in order to just hold on to power, in some sort of desperate 'last redoubt" move. This has not served the party, OR the nation well. In fact, it has led to tyranny of the minority.

    One thing we know from South Africa...minorities should not control majorities. It will not, and should not stand.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    While a "tyranny of the majority" is a serious concern I'm presently far more worried about a "tyranny of the minority".

    Watching politics over the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that we have a 'vetocracy' controlled by a minority whose purpose in government is to veto or repeal majority preferences and when in power govern for a minority. Indeed, the Republican Party's project over time seems to have been to cement it's electoral ability to win and govern for that smaller portion of the country; the minority that believes government is the problem. And in the interregnum they filibuster, veto or cripple any legislation that might prove otherwise. What that has made of government and policy is an unworkable, chaotic system of kludges and patchwork legislation. This "no-compromise-no-holds-barred" brand of ideological warfare is a far cry from the legislative comity and bi-partisan deliberation and negotiation of 40+ years ago.

    The preferences of fifty plus one may not be determinative on Constitutional questions but as preferences go it should be taken seriously on non-Constitutional policy questions. The problem is that for too many ideologues the construction of a ham sandwich can be turned into a Constitutional question. Thus we get a process in which any jot and tittle of governance or policy, down to which fork to use at dinner, not specifically described in the Constitution is unconstitutional. And as we all know everyone is an expert on Consitutional law. Politicians leveraging thier mandate and "the will of the people" with barely a plurality of votes seek to define how a majority lives under that procrustean mandate.

    Collapse
  4. Dylan Paul

    "When we speak of 'democratic nations,' we don’t just mean that they hold elections. We mean that they are free countries."

    I'm not sure this is actually true. Well, it's partly true. Not all countries that hold elections are democratic (see: Belarus) but not all countries with free elections are exactly free countries.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Logical

    I didn't pay attention before, but after JG referenced his kerfuffle with Schmidt, I followed up.

    I thought a deep conservative philosophy is that one should never question or insult how one makes a living as long as it is legal. In that context, JG is off base for calling Schmidt selling resistance porn for enriching himself. JG sold a lot of con porn on Fox too, contributing to the emergence of Trump.

    In the coming months there is going to be a lot of jockeying, realignment, repositioning of the previously conservative entertainment and punditry complex, based on the election results. Everyone will converge on a shtick consistance with individual abilities and an optimum business model to make money. That's the American way.

    Only the gullible believe that their favorite pundit has a higher calling.

    Collapse
    1. Randall Briggs

      "I thought a deep conservative philosophy is that one should never question or insult how one makes a living as long as it is legal." That more a libertarian position than a conservative one. Can you cite some mainstream conservatives making this supposedly deep conservative point?

      Collapse
    2. JohnO

      "JG sold a lot of con porn on Fox contributing to the emergence of Trump" is an unfair accusation. You are entitled to the flimsy theory that actual conservatism, which is all JG has ever 'sold', is what spawned Trump. But that theory just doesn't bear the weight of a personal accusation like you made IMO.

      I also don't think there's a 'deep conservative philosophy' that one should never question a legal living. Abortion doctors? You might also put that in the category of 'conservative hypocrisy' but I think the actual answer is lack of any such 'deep conservative philosophy'. Rather, you seem to be stretching an actual general conservative belief that left leaning people tend to over-moralize differing market outcomes, rather than any belief that literally all legal livings are morally equal.

      Two down, but I agree with the penultimate paragraph, and partly with the last statement: few people, not only pundits, are only every motivated by a higher calling. But that also goes for example government bureaucrats 'looking out the for the little guy', whose lower calling (to power over others' lives) harm me directly, pundits left or right don't directly do that. And it's a sliding scale. As far as pundits, I think this is again a relatively unfair statement to make with reference to Jonah. The big money in right leaning punditry in recent years has not been in bucking Trump like he generally has.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Logical

        JO, I agree with the gov bureaucrats. They need to be called out when they deviate from the assigned tasks by law.

        It may appear that my attack on JG is personal if you skip the context: i e., his personal attack on Schmidt. I believe Schmidt has been consistent, whatever his pre-resistance inclinations were.

        Regarding JG's con porn, e.g., he partook in soft-birtherism. I call him on that. Do your own research.

        Glad you mentioned abortion doctors, which I expected to be called out with certainty. On that subject: 1) make it illegal if you can, and 2) you have an individual who spent nearly 12 years post high school, in the exclusive profession of medicine to help and make a living.

        Market is the king (a conservative mantra). I consider mega-teeve evangelicals as scum of the earth preying on the gullible and picking their pickets. Sooner or later some of them get caught in some kind of hypocrisy or fraud. But I consider it an all American way of living.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    Something we really need to start doing more seriously--the project has been essentially abandoned for years--is teach people, especially young people, the ins and outs of what freedom really means. Too many people are bandying it about without understanding how free individuals should function within society. They should get educated. Too many political grifters are self-servingly misusing the term "liberty." They should shut up.

    Collapse
  7. Anonymous

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      C C Writer

      There's a difference between legal and moral. If someone's doing something illegal, you can call the cops. If someone's doing something legal but immoral in your eyes, exploiting people for personal gain and debasing institutions Americans ought to be able to trust, you can call them out. This way you don't ask the government to decide who's good and who's bad, because that never ends well.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Logical

        Morality is relative; Legality is not.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Logical

        Sorry, I deleted and reposted to correct grammer.

        Collapse
  8. Scroop Moth

    Conservatives during the administration of Ronald Reagan didn’t worry about the harm of a tyranny of the majority. (Paul Krugman for one has shown why they should have. )

    Now that conservatives are a minority party, they are singing a different tune.

    A healthy minority in power is one that persuades others to join with it to form a new majority. This minority is sliding further into the minority of voters.

    Democrats have the People’s House while Republicans hold all the chokeholds: the White House, the Senate, SCOTUS, and a majority of the states. What more do they want. Is the majority never to be allowed to rule on account of their “rankness“?

    Donald Trump has shown that a minority party can also be rank.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      A majority of the states in terms of legislatures and governorships.
      From USNews 2019:
      “THE 15 MOST POPULAR governors in the nation are all Republicans, according to a survey by Morning Consult, a global technology and media company.”

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      It's interesting that you write "rule," Scroop Moth, rather than "govern."

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        I say “rule” out of respect for your feelings, Bill Dyer. “Governance” might sound to you like doublespeak for piss in your corn flakes. For my part, I’d like Democrats to “govern” maximally under the review of your 6-3 court.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        😉😉😉😉 cmon man 🙃

        Collapse
    3. Randall Briggs

      What minority rights did the Reagan administration trample upon?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        I think it's hard to draw a direct link from Reagan to trampling on minority rights.

        I would say rather, Reagans domestic policies created, I will say unintentional, significant adverse effects for minorities and low and middle income workers:

        A. Reagan and Bush promoted the large move to Private Health Insurance. The consequences are that America went from spending 8% of GDP, as other nations spent, started excess profitizing so we now spend 19% of GDP for a nationally ranked health outcomes lower than 1980s.

        B. Reagan, and guys like Jack Welch did 2 things: Started a faster slide of Unions. Although Unions have their own many problems, manufacturing unions are preeminently responsible for the wages and benefits of the Middle Class, and dramatically improved safety and healthy work conditions.

        B-1. Reagan, and again guys like Jack Welch reduced Corporate pensions, which when properly run, not raided are great earned retirement income. 401Ks promise to be great. Many are for many people. If the match is 50% to 100% and.. you invest more conservatively!! As you age and derisk your position age 50s onward.. it's a good.. supplement. Definitely NOT as good as a Defined well run Corporate pension

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    What we have really isn't a protection from the tyranny of the majority as much as "speed bumps on the majority's road to hell". For those who thought ACA was a perfectly written bit of legislation, you are thankful you had 60 votes. For those who thought Kamala was supplying blunts to all the ghostwriters of that legislation, you might have wanted a 67 vote filibuster The majority will always rule, the idea is to limit their power to do dumb s**t.

    I get nervous at anyone who wants one party to have enough power to "get something done". The nice think about traffic gridlock is that when people are bumper-to-bumper at 15 mph, fatalities go down. True, more people get mad and shout things similar to the Jonah/Scott Sally twitter exchange (I never heard of him before--is he important to anyone outside his family)? The same thing is good for legislation. By having to work with others, we get better legislation, albeit more expensive because Nancy needed to add funding for her "cannabis for all" medical proposals, etc.

    I like grdilock, but then again, I live in a small rural town where the worst gridlock is the month of December after dark, when cars line up for blocks to see our town's free half-million Christmas light display...And if you brave it they serve free hot chocolate nearly the entire time.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Hah! Lee hit on one of Jonah’s old talking points.

    Yes, those of us who do a little bit of constitutional and political philosophy reading understood his point.

    Sadly, since it was trending on twitter and google when he said it, it seems most Americans don’t.

    Collapse
Load More